Author
Topic: Geopolitics are very confusing (Read 5661 times)

This is neither a Republican or a Democratic inquiry but I'm very confused about some things and perhaps you can help me gain some clarity.

1. I am still not convinced that the Gulf War was necessary. When we wanted to take out one man we instead killed countless thousands and left him in power. I don't get it.

2. I don't understand our bombing of Serbia. The Albanians attack and attack the Serbs for many years and when the latter responds with power and determination we bomb them into submission. I don't get it.

3. I don't understand why we are threatening another attack on Iraq. Osama is still running around free. There has been no evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Quaida. There isn't even any firm evidence that the Iraqis have weapons of mass distruction. They could have. They might have. They should have. That's all we ever hear. Where's the beef? Moreover, Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, seems to be the epicenter of world wide terrorism and yet they are treated as our friend.

I understand your puzzlement, though I am no longer puzzeled by any of this; for the simple reason that none of this warmongering (or threats of such) has a thing to do with the stated purposes for it. I would have thought this would be obvious to reasonably intelligent people, but it seems many are not aware of this.

I hate to agree with the peaceniks and their "no blood for oil" placards, but the connection they're making with that slogan is right on, and sadly explains the whole thing.

As for the reasons for NATO's aggression against Serbia, it's a similar situation; getting a foot into the region, and the issue of the region's economic potential. If human rights issues were what were bothering NATO (and the USA in particular), then there are far jucier targets in the world right now. Of course, that's not the issue, thus the inaction.

Seraphim - became cynical as a boy when he observed the USA's ferocity towards Cuba, while it simultaneously rushed to embrace China for economic gain...

Oil is certainly a crucial factor in this affair, but to add some balance to the Left's acute focus on this one reason, I will add that serving Israel's interests in the region is also a fanatically strong motive for the civilian politicians in military drag.

I will be keeping my eyes constantly aimed at that country's actions when the bombs start dropping in Iraq.

1. I am still not convinced that the Gulf War was necessary. When we wanted to take out one man we instead killed countless thousands and left him in power. I don't get it.

Well, Saddam had been supported by USA in its war against Iran, Iran was a bastion of fundamentalism and was "dangerous." The attack on Kuwait by Mr. Hussein had always been suspicious to me (yes, I do believe in the complot theories), if you read the declarations between the Emir of Kuwait and Saddam you'll notice that they were hilarious (like two kids fighting for a little girl).

The Gulf War was necessary "because a free and independent nation was attacked" and because of the oil thing. However, Bush didn't want to kick Saddam off after the war, because he was Iran's enemy and Iraq under Saddam worked as a "buffer state" there. The USA betrayed its alliates in the Iraq opposition at the Gulf War. If he had been overthrown, you would have the shiite Ayatollahs and the Communist kurds rulling in Iraq too.

Quote

2. I don't understand our bombing of Serbia. The Albanians attack and attack the Serbs for many years and when the latter responds with power and determination we bomb them into submission. I don't get it.

Well, this is again, a fact of personalities and interests. Kosova, even if it had a Serbian origin, was inhabited by Albanian people (muslims and catholics of the Latin Rite) After the Yugoslavian conflict there were many abusive groups which wanted to take full control of Kosova, so Mr Milosevic suspended the autonomy of the territory with repression and torture. I'm not a big fan of Mr Milosevic and I am sure he was never a good guy, but there have not been evidences of ethnic cleaning in Kosova (as the ones of Bosnia, for example). Anyway there were obvious abuses against Albanians by the Serbian Army.

Here the key was the existence of true and false nations. Milosevic was acceptable for the New World Order as long as he protected with repression the existence of the artificial Yugoslavian state, but became "evil" when he decided to protect his people and their national rights. NATO intervention had serious faults because the radical albanian groups such as the KLA started to think about the "big albania" and got abusive powers, they were permitted to stay in the Government, and after all, the NATO itself refused to accept the Big Albania! (yeah they went too far)

Quote

3. I don't understand why we are threatening another attack on Iraq. Osama is still running around free. There has been no evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Quaida. There isn't even any firm evidence that the Iraqis have weapons of mass distruction. They could have. They might have. They should have. That's all we ever hear. Where's the beef? Moreover, Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, seems to be the epicenter of world wide terrorism and yet they are treated as our friend.

Well, the situation here is that Iraq will pay the prize. The key issue here, and in all cases (Kosova, Iraq...), more than oil, is nationalism. The wars against Milosevic or Saddam will work as an example of what would happen to any nation trying to be fully independent or trying to install a government different from the western "democracy" where you can choose among many candidates, none of whom will have the power, but must submit themselves to the orders of the Economical institutions of the One World Government.

When christianity was united there were nations with their own identity and their own tradition. It was after the schism, and specially after Protestantism appeared in the West when the apostasy of so many nations caused more and more divisions. Then the secret societies and their man-made ideologies were able to re-unite territories according to their own interests, thus supresing identity.

The New World Order is antinatural, as it fights for the destruction of the true nations and for the defense of the artificial nations. We need to differenciate between true nations and false "multi-ethnic, multi-religious" nations that were created under "revolutionary" ideologies of the secret societies which were useful to disolve true national identities.

We need to be prepared for a time when we'll no longer been able to defeat this by ourselves, as it will happen.

If he had been overthrown, you would have the shiite Ayatollahs and the Communist kurds rulling in Iraq too.

Communists or not communists; they are Kurds and have a right to self-determination. As long as we remember that this includes all Kurds. The Kurds are distributed in three modern nation states: Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. There are some in Syria and even fewer in the former Soviet Union. The majority of the oppressed Kurdish nation (43%) reside in Turkey; a NATO member and staunch U.S. ally. Those are just as oppressed as the ones in Iraq.

Anyway there were obvious abuses against Albanians by the Serbian Army.

And vice-versa. Albanian troops in the Serbian army were responsible for the murders of senior officers and poisoning of water supplies among other things. The KLA was listed as a terrorist organisation for many years then all of a sudden became seen as the good guys.

Alas, I don't think there is much hope of those responsible escaping the just judgement that awaits us all at the end of the age. That should be our prayer for them though. They are, after all, responsible for enriching the Holy Orthodox Church with the blood of many more martrys in Kosovo.

Yes, I do understanding that make-believe states were created by Imperialist powers. But this has been true for how many millenia?

The Aryans migrate in the third and second millenia BC and carve out new lands in the Hindus Valley. The descendents of Israel move into Canaan and rearrange the borders in the Holy Land. The Greeks, the Romans, the Monguls, the Americans as they expanded westward all did it. The Muslims conquored countless numbers of people groups which had been Christian, or Jewish, or polytheist and imposed their will upon the people.

To the winner go the spoils. It's ever been thus.

But did Nato really have to bomb Serbia in order to have a regime change?

When ummah is the great goal of Islam what sense did it make for other Muslim nations to join us in an attack on Hussein? I suppose it's just another Bedouin battle to them.

I suppose if the West can keep Muslims fighting amongst themselves they will be too busy to attack us...or will they?

1. I am still not convinced that the Gulf War was necessary. When we wanted to take out one man we instead killed countless thousands and left him in power. I don't get it.

Rank bulls**t, that war. As has been pointed out here, for most of the period Hussein has ruled, until 1990, he and Iraq were propped up by the US, particularly during the war with Iran.

Quote

2. I don't understand our bombing of Serbia. The Albanians attack and attack the Serbs for many years and when the latter responds with power and determination we bomb them into submission. I don't get it.

A convenient proving ground for the New World Order and the destruction of national sovereignty, easy to sell to the American people who are used to Russian bad guys - the Serbs make convenient standins for the Russians, with the advantage that, unlike Russia, they can't really fight back.

Quote

3. I don't understand why we are threatening another attack on Iraq. Osama is still running around free. There has been no evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Quaida. There isn't even any firm evidence that the Iraqis have weapons of mass distruction. They could have. They might have. They should have. That's all we ever hear. Where's the beef? Moreover, Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, seems to be the epicenter of world wide terrorism and yet they are treated as our friend.

Sept. 11 is turning out to be the perfect excuse for the neocons to go for world empire in ways they never could have got away with before.

What really frosts my you-know-whats is we have yet to hear any compelling reasons from the White House for going to war with Iraq. Yes, Saddam is a mean and nasty despot, and he probably has weapons (maybe of mass distruction) but so are a lot of other socalled country leaders. How about North Korea, they have nukes and the means to deliver them thanks to the previous administration. Until I hear GW come out with indicting evidence which clearly shows Iraq is intent on blowing away his neighbors I guess I will remain convinced we should not wage war.

jude

In the short run, we certainly do need to fear Islamic terrorists. (But Saddam certainly is not an "Islamic" terrorist nor sincerely Muslim.)

However, we do need to--in the long run-- fear liberal and progressive Muslims--especially women and intellectuals/academicians--who have: re-discovered Islam and Quran; "love" it; are intent on "protestantizing" Islam; freeing it from "the stranglehold of tradition and the anachronistic mullahs"; making it palatable for the twenty-first century mindset; and want to aggressively "market" the "New Islam" (especially in Southeastern Asia and Asia proper).

A convenient proving ground for the New World Order and the destruction of national sovereignty, easy to sell to the American people who are used to Russian bad guys - the Serbs make convenient standins for the Russians, with the advantage that, unlike Russia, they can't really fight back.

That is the reason why we are not going to after the North Koreans because unlike the Serbs, they can actually fight back and plus China is supporting that regime.

Anyway, I believe that we need to get of the Middle east altogether. I mean we have enough oil in this country(areas like Alaska and the Gulf coast) that we don't need oil from the Saudis. The problem is there are too many enviros who are against doing this because we would destroy 'pristine' areas. Another thing I don't get is why the Saudis are still are friends after 9/11. They support a radical form of Islam and not only that they paid off bin Laden to leave the kingdom so that he would eventually cause trouble elsewhere.

I agree that Zionist interests play a role in this as well. However this I find incredibly arrogant, even more so than the smugness of American warmongers, if only because it is quite a suicidal position to take (given Israel's placement).

It is very sad that views like ours are taken as being "anti-American" (some Americans get particularly riled when they find out I'm a Canadian; nothing seems to upset people than a Canuck criticizing American foreign policy for some reason). However this kind of thinking is not just incorrect, it's tragic - it buys into the great lie which the corrupt American government wants the American people to buy; that it's policies and conspiring are synonymous with the interests of the average American.

Indeed, to be critical of Bush and his band of crooks is not to harbour ill feelings towards the American people. America is much more than the White House; it's the average citizen who goes to work every day, it's the basic values of the people (sadly which are being continually subverted by various minority interests), and their shared history and struggles, which make "America" what it is. It is this which is their greatness, or their shame, not a small band of rich liars who have no love (or real interest for that matter) for these people, the people who make America what it is.

"That should be our prayer for them though. They are, after all, responsible for enriching the Holy Orthodox Church with the blood of many more martrys in Kosovo. "

Don't forget that there are also Albanian Orthodox, most of the Southern portion (south of Tiran+Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â½) is Orthodox, and the Albanians in Montenegro are also christian but from the Latin Rite. Mosr Serbians as well as Northern Albanians who are anti orthodox, do not know that their brothers in the south are orthodox.

"It is very sad that views like ours are taken as being "anti-American" (some Americans get particularly riled when they find out I'm a Canadian"

And not to mention Mexican boys like me And there's also one thing, when I say I am opposed to the New World Order, massonry, Zionism, they also said it's antisemitism.

My college radical days were short lived and are long gone so I guess one should number me among the Americans who get a little testy when a Canadian makes comments like this about America:

"It is this which is their greatness, or their shame, not a small band of rich liars who have no love (or real interest for that matter) for these people, the people who make America what it is."

I know several dimwits who we could elect to be president. Perhaps your country does as well. These dimwits might accurately reflect a rather large percentage of our respective populations, but I don't think I would want them in the White House.

Alan Keyes was my favorite candidate. I voted for him in the primaries. He is easily the brightest of all the candidates from either party. I believe that is the main reason he wasn't chosen. For that I look upon the "wisdom" of our electorate with some dismay. Nevertheless, of the two candidates we were given Bush had many more positive qualities than Gore and his policies were more in keeping with my own. That both Bush and Gore are American Aristocrats is a sad reflection of American life. If you make it for a couple of generations you are pampered and given a leg up in most every aspect of life. I don't know much about Canadian politics but I suspect that its not much different there.

Moreover, when one looks at the way America participates in the world we often act like modern Greek despots. We have developed such an economical juggernaut that with little effort and without even knowing we can bully all sorts of other nations. We too often support friendly tyrants over unfriendly democracies.

Yet some of our glaring weaknesses are also our strengths. We have developed ways that can help anyone get out of poverty if the principles are followed. We can supply necessities (and frivolities) to masses of people that no other people group can do.

Harry Trumans are rare in any society. Too bad we can't have him as our leader in every era. But then there is that little problem that occured in 1945 in Japan....

Alan Keyes was my favorite candidate. I voted for him in the primaries. He is easily the brightest of all the candidates from either party.

I've supported him too.

Bush the elder seems to be a gentleman with much personal courage (flying a plane and getting shot down in WWII) and integrity but politically he was nothing but a tool of the NWO.

Bush the younger? Amiable fellow but a sock puppet.

Quote

Moreover, when one looks at the way America participates in the world we often act like modern Greek despots.

It is a centuries-later repeat of the Roman Empire, writ large, and more directly, the American global empire is the British Empire, Mk. II, a direct continuation brought to you by the NWO (the Rhodes Group, now the CFR, et al.). Fact: there are now more US troops stationed abroad than there were British ones at the height of Empire, Mk. I. The neocons' dream.

Quote

Harry Trumans are rare in any society. Too bad we can't have him as our leader in every era.

NWO = NEW WORLD ORDER. The term was used by the Sr. Bush. I don't know if it is real or only an idea. I tend to distrust conspiracy theories but I have no idea what the Sr. Bush was talking about. That's not unusual. I never could figure out his "Thousand points of light" either. I knew what it was supposed to mean, but why make it sound like a big deal?

Fact: there are now more US troops stationed abroad than there were British ones at the height of Empire, Mk. I. The neocons' dream.

And the ultimate mistake of all empires, that finally spells their end. When military forces are madly spread out all over the globe, keep your eyes on the empire's periphery and center. A collapse becomes imminent.

Indeed, to be critical of Bush and his band of crooks is not to harbour ill feelings towards the American people. America is much more than the White House;

Seraphim, common sense dictates there is an infinite gap between nationalism, worship of the state, and patriotism, human love for native soil, where I submit that the modern nation state is the mortal enemy of the people, country, and customs.

When this distinction is safely observed, one can see that amongst those who are merciless towards the band of monkeys in D.C. and the federal behemoth are the most American of the lot, who still realize that "United States" is rendered plural and is based on states' rights and the reverence accorded to the local community's privilege in deciding its own fate and managing its own affairs.

And this distinction must be applied to Canada too, where we have enough numbskulls and catastrophes incarnate for those who thrive on disgracing this land, to boast of: subspecimens like Trudeau and da jackass extraordinare Cretien. God save the Queen and may Ottawa bureaucracy headquarters implode.